The pilgrimage...

[chris jordan]

Mark, I would not suggest taking your work to another photographer for a judgment about its value; take it to someone who is respected in the curatorial world (as Steiglitz was at the time). Remember that the guys who made the pilgrimmage to Steiglitz were doing cutting-edge work and they wanted it seen by the most sophisticated eyes in the art world. If you are doing what you think is cutting edge work, then look around for that kind of person to show it to.

However, nowadays there really isn't any one curator-type who is considered the end-all decider of what is good and what isn't. You will get just as many opinions as the number of people that you show it to. So I urge you not to make the mistake of putting all of your faith in the opinion of one person, because if they trash your work then it can be devastating (I know-- I have made that mistake a few times over). You can only judge whether your work has value in the art world after having it reviewed by a large number of people and seeing the patterns that emerge.

I would recommend attending the portfolio review events in Houston, Santa Fe, Portland Oregon and possibly elsewhere. If you do that you will hear many widely varied opinions about your work; some will make sense and others won't, and after a while you will get an overall sense of how your work is viewed and where in the art world it might have value. In the end it really comes down to how much you value your own work; I think successful artists value their own work, and in doing so they teach others to value their work.

Good luck,

~cj

www.chrisjordan.com

[Bruce Watson]

Tell you the truth, I wouldn't bother. I've played that game. The results, while interesting, didn't much change anything.

For example, Michael Smith has seen my prints at a workshop. He absolutely hated them. He didn't have much to say about the images, but he frothed at the mouth over the fact that they were inkjet prints. He gave the impression that if it wasn't a contact print, or at least a silver gelatin print, then it wasn't worth his time to look at it. The public humiliation was interesting (but not new, sigh...) but the lack of constructive criticism made it an exercise in futility.

Everyone, be they artists, collectors, gallery owners, friends, or family, brings their own preconceived notion of what is good and bad along for the ride when they look at your prints. Artists in particular do things the way they do things because they've decided that this is what works best (for them). If you don't agree, then...

What I'm saying is, objectivity is interesting to talk about, but it doesn't exist. And whether or not someone else approves of disapproves might be interesting, but it's not relevant. In the end, you have to please yourself, regardless. My feeling is, Michael just doesn't know what he's missing ;-)

[Jim Rice]

The one 'famous' photographer I ever met was former Life staffer Ed Clark. http://artscenecal.com/ArtistsFiles/ClarkE/ClarkEPics/EClark1.html I was a kid, he was open and generous. Alas, I hadn't even thought of bringing some of my work. I did get to ask him what his favorite photograph was, and it was a photo of the arc d'triumph.

When I scrape together enough gas and dive motel money, I'm heading to Cali to annoy our own Ralph Barker.

[David Richhart]

I had the great privilege and pleasure of having Emmett Gowin as a teacher at the Dayton Art Institute, before he went to Princeton. He is without a doubt the most interesting, generous, and passionate person I have ever heard speak. If you were to ask him a question or show him the latest "work prints, he was always upbeat, and encouraging, and free with suggestions.

The real treat was showing him a few finished prints. It was as if the rest of the world had clocked out and for a time and nothing was more important than you and your work. That time could stretch into hours while discussung both his and your feelings about 1 or 2 of your prints. He would share memories and experiences from his past and his life as a family man and how they related to him as a photographer. Emmett would encourage you to consider your own life and emotions, and how they related to and influenced your photographs. Whether he thought your prints were good or bad was certainly talked about, but the meetings were always about much more than that.

That was a lot for him to give to an undistinguished 19 year old college student fresh off the farm, and to this day I am grateful for it. I'm sure the rest of his students (including Sally Mann) would agree. If I had the chance to visit 1 photographer or see a lecture by 1 photographer, I would choose Emmett Gowin.

[Mark Sawyer]

Chris- you're absolutely right, of course, and there's a significant part of my psyche that enjoys working in a vacuum. And while we all (I suspect) have another part that seeks critical approval from those whose work has influenced and inspired us, there's a third aspect which holds the most curiousity for me: When an articulate, sensitive, informed and accomplished person, someone who has some true stature to evaluate, mediate, and discuss the success (or failure) of a body of work, views our work with a critical eye, what will be his response?

Will he even recognize what I try so hard and so specifically to do? Will he see some aspect I've never considered? Will he miss the point entirely, catch me as the fraud I truly am? What will I take away from the experience? (No, I don't mean sales-wise.) And while I would of course value the response, I'd not be looking (I hope) so much for approval as response and insight.

We're each our own best and worst critic, certainly each our own most influential. But there is an old tradition, admittedly somewhat lost today, in much of the art world of "going up the mountain" to present yourself to the oracle.

Whether one is "cutting-edge" is a whole `nother can of worms. I personally feel that since maybe 1910, certainly since 1960, the art world has been so conscious of the "cutting edge," and so many are trying so hard to be there, that it's lost its value. When I see the work of those trying so hard to be there, the strongest message of the work seems to be "Look at me! I'm avante-garde!"

[Mark Sawyer]

"For example, Michael Smith has seen my prints at a workshop. He absolutely hated them. He didn't have much to say about the images, but he frothed at the mouth over the fact that they were inkjet prints."

Yup, and Jimi Hendrix played lousy guitar because it wasn't accoustic...

[Mark Sawyer]

"i find it interesting that no one has mentioned any of the folks that use this forum regularly...
--Scott, "

Actually, there are quite a few people here I'd love to get together with in a small group for and evening or two, everyone bringing 6-12 prints, open a couple good bottles of red wine, and see where the conversation goes. Kirk, Chris, David, Jim, Bruce, Jorge... most everyone on this thread. I think it would be a wonderful, memorable time.

There is a small local group here in Tucson that meets very occassionally, and though we're all using large format, our approaches aesthetically are so different that we discuss technique and equipment far more than anything else.

[Scott Rosenberg]

When I scrape together enough gas and dive motel money, I'm heading to Cali to annoy our own Ralph Barker.

that's precisely what i menat... we've got some amazing talent right here in our little community. seems like a little utilized resource, as i seldom see a request for a critique on this forum.

ralph, kerry, chris, eugene, tuan, kirk, paul, danny, jerry, todd, scott, graeme, guy, and scores of others whose names i am too tired to recall right now (if i didn't mention you, please don't feel slighted by the omission - i'm exhausted) are all expert in the field and right here under our noses.

[Scott Rosenberg]

mark... it looks like we are of the same thought and were typing at the same time. i whole-heartedly agree!

[Jim Rice]

Of course, I haven't actullaly asked Ralph about this, and given his admiration of firearms, I suppose I should. ;=)